Harrison way off base on Insite facility

Share

This comment comes from David Morrs in response to Jim Harrison’s editorial ‘Give Kelowna, not us, safe injection site.’

Wow. Jim. just...wow. You always seem to spout that we should let science and experts speak on issues that we they lay person don't understand. Yet here you are the authority on whether safe injection sites work or not. Which scientists, health care workers, criminologists and police agree that they do.

Insite. (Vancouver Coastal Health Authority photo)

You also strike me as someone who hates when taxpayer money is wasted. Yet safe injections sites have shown to save millions on health care costs of treating overdoses as well as the costs of prosecuting and jailing the users. So if the experts in these fields say they work, and if taxpayer money can be saved and needles can be kept off the streets. Why are you complaining?

In reality, the site will go to where the issues are. If overdoses and street level use is a bigger problem here, then the facility should go here. If it's Kelowna, then Kelowna will get it. Heck, it may even end up in Vernon or Penticton. Let's let the experts and science decide and you just keep your outdated opinion to yourself.

And this one comes from Tyler:

Oh Jim, people don't just go to places like insight to "shoot up and chill." They actually have to commit to detox programs while they are there. If you ever read any of the scientific studies on the insight facility, of there have been 30+. (You know, how you always say we need to wait for the science), you would see that patients have increased use of detox programs in the long term.

Getting them off the drugs and back into society. It decreases street level needle sharing and allows police to focus on other areas of their jobs. Admittingly is has not cleaned up the DTES, but were you expecting 1 safe injection site to do that?

The Canadian Medical association did a cost-benefit analysis of insight in 2008 and found a savings of 18 million. That's tax money not being spent treating these overdoses and straining the medical system. The medical journal The Lancet found it decreased overdose deaths by 35% and the Canadian Medical Association again found that the facility reduces harm to users and the public according to scientists, criminologists, and even the Vancouver Police Department.

So why would you not want a reduction in street/alley use and increased protection to the public here in Kamloops. So basically Jim, what you're saying is. Keep what users here doing drugs on the streets, sharing needles and leaving them where they can be picked up by kids or others. And allow Kelowna to have cleaner, safer streets?

Really not seeing your way of thinking here Jim. Hopefully, if the injection site does go to Kelowna, users in town will pile into your back yard to shoot up and "chill." Don't complain if they do.

cwowo says:
June 5, 2016 11:44am

I for one totally agree with Harrison's comments. The facility in Van does nothing to cure drug addiction. Visit the area it is a mess and a magnet for druggies and the crime that goes with it. You talk of experts and science, well you better do some research rather than the drivel they are trying to feed you. There is no stats or research to show accurately how effective this waste of taxpayers money for an illegal activity is. No doctors for law abiding citizens but you want health care dollars to flow to support another grandiose feel good scheme.

Sean says:
June 4, 2016 10:36pm

Safe injection sites are a very partial and trendy solution to the drug problem. The drugs used in the sites are normally obtained by crimes. Theft, robbery, burglary and fraud come to mind. This does nothing to deal with these issues. It does offer the criminal a safe place to take his ill gotten gains. If the drug addict is serious about a cure, expand the facilities available to deal with his problem. Does the presence of a clinic truly rid a neighborhood of needles? Would the clinic increase the crime in an area? Do these people really want the clinic next door to them? Could this be a means of shunting the problem to poorer neighborhoods?

Aaron says:
June 4, 2016 12:45pm

Stunned. Just stunned. You are actually positioning an argument against basic health care services for our community. The depth of ignorance in this article is just too much to ignore. Are there other segments of the population that you would like to deny basic health care services? Women, children, the elderly? I am not sure what is worse. That you wrote the article or that someone paid you to do it.
In response I have ended my feed from this service.